See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319250802
Evaluation of the physical education and sports curriculum in Turkish schools
Article in Educational Research and Reviews · August 2017
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2017.3303
CITATIONS
READS
2
1,698
1 author:
Ahmet sadan Okmen
Mugla Üniversitesi
5 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmet sadan Okmen on 03 December 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Vol. 12(16), pp. 813-818, 23 August, 2017
DOI: 10.5897/ERR2017.3303
Article Number: 62D65B265577
ISSN 1990-3839
Copyright © 2017
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
Educational Research and Reviews
Full Length Research Paper
Evaluation of the physical education and sports
curriculum in Turkish schools
Ahmet Sadan Okmen
Department of Classroom Teaching Education, Faculty of Education, Mugla Sıtkı Kocman University,
Merkez, Muğla, Turkey.
Received 18 June, 2017; Accepted 9 August, 2017
This study assesses the vocational education courses given in schools of physical education and sport
at Turkish universities and their use in the life of professionals. This study investigates 55 male and 25
female participants, aged 24 to 49, randomly selected from among the physical education and sport
teachers in government and private schools in the cities of Edirne, Tekirdag, and Kırklareli of the Trakya
region of Turkey. The evaluation form includes 72 courses (questions) taken by the participants from
departments of physical education and sport at universities in Turkey. The participants were given four
weeks to assess the courses on the evaluation form according to their professional past experience.
The participants gave scores from 0 (unimportant) to 5 (very important) to all courses. According to the
study, in the opinion of physical education and sport teachers, some of the courses were not needed in
their professional careers: (1) practical courses (education: wrestling, mountaineering, ski, judo, etc.),
(2) theoretical courses (education: statistics, seminars and projects, Olympic sports, etc.) and (3)
pedagogical formation (education sociology). As a result of this study, it was argued that the courses
that received low scores on the evaluation should be re-evaluated or eliminated from the curriculum.
Moreover, the course hours and contents could be rearranged and developed.
Keywords: Curriculum, physical education, sport, teacher, university.
INTRODUCTION
The roots of the curriculum field go back to the days of
Herbert (1776-1841), who taught that learning requires
an orderly attention for the selection and organization of
subject matter. Herbert‟s views were applicable to
physical education as well as other educational fields,
and he was one of the first thinkers to recognize the
essential nature of a properly conceived and structured
program of physical activity (Willgoose, 1984).
Throughout the years, school systems became
“curriculum-conscious” as they developed and revised
their subject matter plans (Siedentop, 1980). Caswell
(1966) highlighted three important considerations: (1) The
establishment of a consistent relationship between
general goals and specific objectives to guide teachers,
(2) a sound sequence of courses with continuity in the
curriculum, and (3) ensuring balance in the curriculum.
More recently, Haas (1977) extended these curricular
considerations to include a concern for social forces as
reflected in social goals, cultural uniformity and diversity,
social pressures, social change, future planning, and
E-mail: sadanokmen@gmail.com.
Authors agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
814
Educ. Res. Rev.
concepts of culture.
Physical education has reached a level of
sophistication at which serious thought can and should
be given to a carefully reasoned and well-designed
curriculum for the learner, one that can replace the
disjointed divisions of the past and present (Willgoose,
1984).
Physical education in schools across the globe has
undergone significant developments over the past
century; however, for many years there has been much
international concern about the status and future of this
subject area (Dodds and Locke, 1984; Dunn, 2009;
Hardman, 2013; Kirk, 2010; Lawson, 1998; Macdonald
and Brooker, 1997; Onofre et al., 2012a, b; Sanders and
McCrum, 1999; Tinning and Fitzclarence, 1992; Stier et
al., 1994). Researchers have investigated the status of
physical education in particular regions, nations, and
internationally, with many of these investigations taking
the form of surveys or case studies (Hardman, 2008,
2013; Hickson et al., 2012; Luke, 2000; Onofre et al.,
2012a, b; Rivard and Beaudoin, 2005). Many of these
investigations have included some examination of
physical education curricula; however, there is a dearth of
in-depth physical education curriculum document
analysis.
Teachers are now performing their duties in a
globalizing world where information and technology
improve very quickly, national borders have started to
disappear
and
intercultural
interactions
and
communication increase. In order to educate teachers in
such circumstances, changes made to education
faculties and teacher training programs are important
(Çelikten et al., 2005).
According to Locke (1984), physical educators should
plan lessons in advance, adapt lessons to the needs of
individual students, provide adequate opportunities to
contribute to fitness, provide positive reinforcement for
learning, avoid time-wasting managerial tasks, provide
prompt and specific feedback for practice tasks, and
provide clear models for desired learning. Balancing an
ideal mix of subject matter content and pedagogical
knowledge in the education of future teachers is an
important issue (Ball, 2000). Teacher education programs
are therefore faced with the challenging task of deciding
what kinds of, and how much subject matter content and
pedagogy preparation are needed for prospective
teachers.
However, the education of physical education (PE)
teachers has not been widely explored (Dodds, 2006).
Although, the subject matter content knowledge and
pedagogical knowledge are critical indicators of highly
qualified PE teachers, little is known about how these
types of knowledge are taught in Physical Education
Teacher Education (PETE) programs.
“PETE programs are designed to facilitate preservice
teachers‟ progress toward being deemed „highly qualified‟
upon entrance into the profession” (NASPE, 2007a).
PETE programs should be accredited based on PETE
standards and the faculty should model passion,
reflection, and dedication (Napper-Owens et al., 2008).
PETE programs should provide preservice teachers with
substantial pedagogical and content knowledge bases;
afford many opportunities for preservice teachers to
participate in an array of field experiences where they
can interact with veteran teachers and diverse students
at all grade levels, while seeing the application of
classroom principles and develop, nurture, and reinforce
specific professional behaviors that facilitate student
learning (NASPE, 2007b).
Highly qualified teachers need to contribute to their
schools outside of their respective classrooms as well.
For example, other important responsibilities that help
define a “highly qualified teacher” include demonstrating
professionalism and ethical behavior in the learning
environment through positive interactions with students,
colleagues, administrators, and community members
(NASPE, 2007a; Yanik and Çamliyer, 2015).
Although most of the criticisms of curriculum in physical
education and sports have some merit, most problems
are not caused by the use of curriculum in physical
education and sports, but by its misuse. In most cases, a
curriculum provides results that are more objective,
accurate, and relevant. What is needed is a more
professional use of the curriculum in physical education
and sports with a greater emphasis on ways it can be
used to improve pupil learning and development
(Gronlund and Liin, 1990).
A curriculum model is a general pattern for creating or
shaping program designs in educational settings; the
model incorporates a conceptual framework and should
be consistent with the theory upon which the framework
is based (Jewett et al., 1995). Physical educators study
curriculum theories in order to clarify educational
philosophies and develop new perspectives. The nature
and quality of future PE programs will depend largely on
the insights and commitments of the professionals
responsible for future curricular decision making
(Bahneman, 1996).
Research in PETE programs has focused on
curriculum alignment (Bulger et al., 2008); general
descriptions of the curriculum, coursework, and practical
experience of the teacher candidates (Ayers and
Housner, 2008; Hetland and Strand, 2010); and the
infusion of diversity within the curriculum (Burden et al.,
2004).
In Turkey, as a result of changes in 1982, the duty of
educating teachers was taken from the Ministry of
National Education and vested in the universities. Within
this period, the education faculties have significantly
contributed to educating the qualified teachers that our
educational system needs. With the establishment of a
comprehensive program that started in the 2006/2007
Okmen
academic year, the courses were classified as MB
(Professional Knowledge), GK (General Culture), and AB
(Area Knowledge). The content of optional courses was
classified as AB, GK, and MB by the Council of Higher
Education (YOK), but the courses are chosen individually
by universities.
Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to
investigate and describe the curriculum in Physical
Education and Sports (PES), and courses given by the
PES schools were evaluated to determine which courses
were considered very important or unimportant. The
questions in the public survey give the names of courses
that are the same throughout all PES schools in Turkey.
Based on previous literature and experiences, this
study discusses and evaluates the curriculum in PES.
The study research question was whether the curriculum
used in PES schools was useful to every city in Turkey.
In addition, the study attempts to contribute to making
good the common lack of knowledge of the curriculum of
PES schools.
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The sample set of this study was selected from among PES
teachers working in government and private schools in the cities of
Edirne, Tekirdag, and Kırklareli in the Trakya Region of Turkey. The
evaluation form was given to female (n = 25) and male (n = 55)
respondents, for a total of 80 participants. Their ages were between
24 and 49 years old and they agreed voluntarily to participate in the
study. The occupational experience of the participants ranged from
3 to 25 years. The participants in the study were randomly selected.
Instruments
Public survey
The public survey in this study includes 72 courses (22 practical, 36
theoretical, and 14 pedagogical formation courses) offered by PES
departments of universities in Turkey. The participants scored all
courses taken at universities in Turkey from 0 (unimportant) to 5
(very important). The purpose of this research is to determine which
courses are more important and those that are considered
unimportant in the PES curriculum, using the concepts of a "Likert
Scale" and "Likert-type items”. The participants completed the
evaluation form within four weeks.
Data analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS). All data collected through the public
survey were analysed by descriptive statistics, particularly the mean
(X) and standard deviation (SD).
RESULTS
As stated earlier, 80 PES teachers (25 females and 55
815
males) participated in the study. The means and standard
deviations of the ages of the educators were 33.8 ± 8.0
years and their years of experience were 9.6 ± 6.8 years,
with a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 25 years.
Table 1 shows that practical lessons that are rated
effective in schools in Turkey are basketball, celebratory
ceremony, volleyball, soccer, track and field, handball,
gymnastics and table tennis. Table 2 shows that PES
teachers indicated that theoretical courses in the PES
teaching departments at universities were effective and
necessary in their professional life.
Table 3 shows that PES teachers indicated that the
pedagogical formation courses they learned at university
faculty were effective in their professional lives.
DISCUSSION
A well-trained PE teacher should be able to effectively
perform sports activities as well as teach them effectively.
For this reason, programs that train physical educators
should aim at developing the skills related to physical
activities as well as developing teaching behaviours
related to them.
The aim of a PE program is to create an environment
for acquiring knowledge and competence in fundamental
motor skills, physical fitness, athletics, swimming and
other water sports, sports and games, leisure activities,
dance, rhythmic gymnastics, and outdoor activities
(Prskalo et al., 2007). However, highly qualified PE
teachers understand the importance of meeting the
needs of all types of learners and should use the
outcomes provided in the national standards to elicit
ideas for a variety of instructional strategies to do so.
Students should be encouraged to be physically active
inside and outside of the school setting.
The results of this study demonstrated that the PE
courses in Table 1 should be widely encouraged in the
PES curriculum. Acıkada (1992) found results similar to
those of our study. Most of the same courses listed in
Table 2 were found very important for PES teachers
(Acıkada, 1992). The content of teacher education
programs should align with extant subject matter
standards. This means that the formal study of teaching
should focus on teaching important ideas in core
academic subjects rather than on generic teaching skills
such as lesson planning and classroom management
(Kennedy, 1997). The content of teacher education
programs should emphasize the relationship between
teaching and learning (McIntyre, 1996).
“In an ideal world, PETE programs would provide
prospective teachers with subject-matter knowledge
related to the physiology, anatomy, and neuromuscular
structures of the body, and an understanding of how
these systems respond and adapt to physical activity”
(Bulger et al., 2008). Indeed in our study, anatomy and
816
Educ. Res. Rev.
Table 1. Practical courses taken in department of physical education and sports in universities.
Physical education and sports
(Practical Courses) (n=80)
Basketball
Celebratory ceremony
Volleyball
Soccer
Track and field
Handball
Gymnastics
Table tennis
Rhythm education and sports
Swimming
Rhythmic gymnastics
X ± SD
4.78 ± 0.42
4.78 ± 0.49
4.75 ± 0.51
4.66 ± 0.65
4.62 ± 0.61
4.59 ± 0.80
4.50 ± 0.72
4.09 ± 1.09
3.66 ± 1.36
2.94 ± 1.81
2.91 ± 1.47
Physical education and sports
(Theoretical Courses) (n=80)
Artistic gymnastics
Tennis (Court)
Badminton
Wrestling
Mountaineering
Bicycle
Archery
Ski
Judo
Wrestling with oil
Golf
X ± SD
2.72 ± 1.02
2.63 ± 1.50
2.53 ± 1.50
1.87 ± 1.45
1.69 ± 1.51
1.66 ± 1.56
1.59 ± 1.50
1.56 ± 1.59
1.53 ± 1.39
1.34 ± 1.49
1.06 ± 1.29
X: Mean; SD: standard deviation.
Table 2. Theoretical courses taken in department of Physical Education and Sports in Universities.
Physical education and sports
(Theoretical Courses) (n=80)
First aid and lifeguard
Training theory
Health education
Sports injuries and rehabilitation
Educational games
Talent identification in sports
Science in sports and training
Child and sports
Skill learning in PES
Introduction to PES
Motor development
Physical fitness
Nutrition in sports
Sports for life
Education in Turkish folk dance
Sports psychology
Exercises and Illness
PES for handicapped
X ± SD
4.81 ± 0.47
4.75 ± 0.57
4.66 ± 0.60
4.56 ± 0.76
4.56 ± 0.67
4.50 ± 0.84
4.50 ± 0.98
4.44 ± 0.72
4.34 ± 0.83
4.31 ± 1.03
4.31 ± 0.86
4.22 ± 0.79
4.19 ± 0.86
4.16 ± 0.77
4.06 ± 1.29
4.09 ± 0.82
4.00 ± 1.02
3.97 ± 1.26
Physical education and sports
(Theoretical Courses) (n=80)
Human anatomy and kinesiology
Recreation and leadership
Advance training theory
Computer apparatus in PES
Sports physiology
Scientific research methods in PES
Game analysis in PES
Sports sociology
Performance test in PES
Biomechanics in PES
Sports and folk science
Sports philosophy
Sports history
Sports and industry
Sports and media
Olympic
Seminar and project
Statistics
X ± SD
3.94 ± 0.95
3.88 ± 0.91
3.81 ± 1.40
3.78 ± 1.01
3.72 ± 1.02
3.66 ± 1.07
3.66 ± 1.34
3.53 ± 1.02
3.41 ± 1.34
3.34 ± 1.21
3.34 ± 1.21
3.28 ± 1.11
3.25 ± 1.11
3.16 ± 1.25
3.00 ± 1.27
2.97 ± 1.36
2.97 ± 1.38
2.97 ± 1.33
X: Mean, SD: standard deviation.
physiology were considered important lessons that were
rated between 3.00 and 4.50 (Table 2).
PETE faculty must be able to prepare future physical
educators for roles and responsibilities that are
fundamentally different from those of their predecessors
(McKenzie and Kahan, 2004). “Highly qualified” adapted
physical
education
teachers
must
possess
comprehensive content knowledge in disability studies
(Kelly, 2006).
Ayers and Housner (2008) reported that field
experiences are not limited exclusively to students
teaching in PETE programs. O‟Sullivan (1990) believed
that observations and field experiences are very
important for the K-12 PE experience. In our study,
practical lessons in schools were described as important
lessons that were rated between 3.00 and 4.50 (Table 2).
Okmen
817
Table 3. Courses of pedagogical formation taken in faculty of education in universities.
Course of education (n=80)
Teaching practice in PES
Planning and evaluation in teaching
Introduction to education
Management in class
Guidance
Special teaching methods in PES
Practice in school
X ± SD
4.75 ± 0.51
4.62 ± 0.61
4.53 ± 0.84
4.50 ± 0.67
4.47 ± 0.95
4.44 ± 0.72
4 .41 ± 0.98
Course of education (n=80)
Teaching and Development
Technology and Material Development in Teaching
PES Management and Organization in School
Education Psychology
Sports Pedagogy
Education in Preschool
Education Sociology
X ± SD
4.31 ± 0.80
4.19 ± 1.00
4.09 ± 0.90
4.09 ± 0.80
3.94 ± 1.20
3.94 ± 1.10
3.53 ± 1.00
X: Mean; SD: standard deviation.
However, Collins (1991) stated that although a solid
theoretical foundation is important in any practical
endeavor, it may be more “efficacious to think in terms of
engaging thoughtfully with theory and then, putting
ourselves into practice rather than putting theory into
practice”. Put simply, serious engagement with
theoretical ideas provides the stimulus to be critically
reflective teachers, which in turn reveals itself in actual
teaching.
School implementation constitutes one of the most
important dimensions of pre-service teacher training. This
implementation is very effective in gaining professional
knowledge and skills (Harmandar et al., 2000). Numerous
practicum experiences are required to prepare qualified
physical educators; however, the quality of the
experience must be considered (Hickson et al., 2006).
On the other hand, other courses included in PE and in
Table 2 should be reduced or eliminated from the PES
curriculum. According to Acıkada (1992), most of the
same low-rated courses in Table 1 were found
unimportant to PES teachers, a result similar to that of
our study (Acıkada, 1992).
Also, according to our study, PES teachers wanted to
take more than 50% practical courses rather than
theoretical courses in the school curriculum. Martinek
(1976) agrees that when students not only participate in
physical activity but also truly share in decision making,
they exhibit a higher self-concept than those students
who do not participate.
Conclusion
Conclusively, the present study showed that the highlyrated courses in Table 1 should be supported in the PES
curriculum, or that the courses offered in PES should be
similar to those in Table 1. These courses can help the
teachers in their work. The PE curriculum at teacher
education institutions should be as close as possible to
the PE curriculum at schools to be functionally supportive
of the students' future professional work (Prskalo et al.,
2007). PETE programs need to equip teachers with the
requisite skills and knowledge, but also develop PES
teachers who can understand the new generations of
children and youths and the context of new times. Wellplanned and continuous efforts are needed to secure the
strongest support at all educational levels.
Future works will require more comprehensive curriculum
review and restructuring.
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
The authors has not declared any conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
Acıkada C (1992). Beden eğitimi ve spor öğretmeni yetiştirmede
müfredat programı sorunları. I. Eğitim Kurumlarında Beden Eğitimi ve
Spor Sempozyumu (19-21 Aralık). s.149-156.
Ayers SA, Housner LD (2008). A descriptive analysis of undergraduate
PETE programs. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 27:51-67.
Bahneman CP (1996). An analysis of the undergraduate physical
education teacher certification requirements within institutions which
offer a doctoral degree in physical education. Phys. Educator.
54:198-205.
Ball DL (2000). Bridging practices: intertwining content and pedagogy in
teaching and learning to teach. J. Teach. Educ. 51:241-247.
Bulger SM, Housner LD, Lee AM (2008). Curriculum alignment: a view
from physical education teacher education. J. Phys. Educ. Recreation
Dance. 79(7):44-49.
Burden JW, Hodge SR, O‟Bryant CP, Harrison L (2004). From colourblindness to intercultural sensitivity: infusing Diversity Training in
PETE programs. Quest. 56:173-189.
Caswell HI (1966). Emergence of the curriculum as a field of
professional work and study. In: Robison HP (Ed.). Precedents and
promises in curriculum field. New York: Teachers College Press, 111.
Çelikten M, Şanal M, Yeni Y (2005). Öğretmenlik mesleği ve özellikleri.
Erciyes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi. 19(2):207-237.
Collins M (1991). Adult education as vocation: a critical role of the adult
educator. London and New York: Routledge, 47.
Dodds P, Locke L (1984). Is physical education in American schools
worth saving? Evidence, alternatives, judgment. In: Struna NL (Ed.).
National Association of Physical Education in Higher Education
Proceedings (Vol. 5). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Dodds P (2006). Physical education teacher education (PE/TE) policy.
818
Educ. Res. Rev.
In Kirk D, Macdonald D, & O‟Sullivan M. (Ed.). The handbook of
physical education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gronlund NE, Liin LR (1990). Measurement and evaluation in teaching.
th
(6 Ed.). Macmillan Publishing.
Dunn JM (2009). The times are a changing: implications for kinesiology.
Quest. 61(3):269-277.
Hardman K (2008). The situation of physical education in schools: A
European perspective. Hum. Movement 9(1):5-18.
Hardman K (2013). Global issues in physical education: Worldwide
physical education survey III findings. Intl. J. Phys. Educ. 50(3):1528.
Harmandar M, Bayrakçeken S, Kıncal RY, Büyükkasap E, Kızılkaya S
(2000). Kâzım Karabekir Eğitim Fakültesinde okul deneyimi
uygulaması ve sonuçlarının değerlendirilmesi. Milli Eğitim Dergisi.
148:3-6.
Hass G (1977). Curriculum planning: A new approach, 2nd ed. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, P 6.
Hetland KM, Strand B (2010). A descriptive analysis of undergraduate
PETE programs in the central district. ICHPER-SD J. Res. In: Health,
Phys. Educ. Recreation Sport Dance. 5(1):3-9.
Hickson C, Fishburne G, Saby C, Berg S (2006). Physical education
practicum experiences: are they helping preservice elementary
school teachers Intl. J. Learn. 13(5):9-28.
Hickson C, Robinson D, Berg S (2012). Active in the North community
physical activity programming in Canada. Intl. J. Phys. Educ.
49(2):16-30.
Jewett AE, Bain LL, Ennis CD (1995). The curriculum process in
physical education. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.
Kelly L (2006). Adapted physical education national standards. (2nd
ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kennedy MM (1997). Defining an Ideal Teacher Education Program,
https://www.msu.edu/~mkennedy/publications/Kennedy%20to%20NC
ATE.pdf(July 04, 2017).
Kirk D (2010). Physical education futures. London: Routledge.
Lawson HA (1998). Here today, gone tomorrow? a framework for
analysing the development, transformation, and disappearance of
helping fields. Quest 50(2):225-237.
Locke L (1984). Research on teaching teachers: Where are we now? J.
Teaching Physic. Educ. Monog. 2:1-86.
Luke MD (2000). Physical and health education curriculum: CrossCanada perspectives. CAHPERD J. 66(2):4-12.
MacDonald D, Brooker R (1997). Moving beyond the crises in
secondary physical education: an Australian initiative. J. Teach.
Phys. Educ. 16(2):155-175.
Martinek TJ (1976). The effects of horizontal and vertical models of
teaching on the development of specific motor skills and self-concept
in elementary school children. (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Boston University).
McIntyre DJ, Killian JE (1986). Student‟s interactions with pupils and
cooperating teachers in early field experiences. Teacher Educator.
22(2):2-9.
McKenzie TL, Kahan D (2004). Impact of the Surgeon General‟s
Report: Through the eyes of physical education teacher educators.
Physical Education, Physical Activity, and Public Health: Learning
from the Past, Building for the Future [Monograph]. J. Teach. Phys.
Educ. 23(4):300-317.
Napper-Owen G, Marston R, Van Volkinburg P, Afeman H, Brewer J
(2008). What constitutes a highly qualified physical education
teacher. J. Phys. Educ. Recreation Dance. 79(8):26-30.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE)
(2007a). What constitutes a highly qualified physical education
teacher?, http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/pdf_files/ HiQualified.pdf.
(February 02, 2015).
National Association for Sport and Physical Education (NASPE)
(2007b).
Physical
education
teacher
evaluation
tool,http://www.aahperd.org/naspe/pdf_files/pos_papers/TeacherEval
uationTool.pdf (February 02, 2015).
Onofre M, Marques A, Moreira R, Holzweg M, Repond RM, Scheuer C
(2012a). Physical education and sport in Europe: From individual
View publication stats
reality to collective desirability (Part 2). Intl. J. Phys. Educ. 49(3):1730.
Onofre M, Marques A, Moreira AR (2012b). Physical education and
sport in Europe: from individual reality to collective desirability (Part
2). Intl. J. Phys. Educ. 49(3):17-30.
O‟Sullivan M (1990). Physical education teacher education in the United
States. J. Phys. Educ. Recreation Dance. 61(2):41- 45.
Prskalo I, Findak V, Neljak B (2007). Educating future preschool and
primary school teachers to teach physical education-Bologna process
in Croatia. Kinesiology. 39(2):171-183.
Rivard MC, Beaudoin C (2005). Physical education in Canada. In:
Puhse U and Gerber M (Eds.). International Comparison of Physical
Education. Concept – Problems – Prospects. Aachen: Meyer &
Meyer Verlag.
Sanders S, McCrum D (1999). Peaks of excellence, valleys of despair:
What is the future of physical education? Teaching Elementary Phys.
Educ. 10(1):3-4.
Siedentop D (1980). Physical education curriculum: An analysis of the
past. J. Phys. Educ. Recreation. 51:40-41.
Stier WF, Kleinman S, Milchrist PA (1994). The future of physical
education-Survival
or
extinction?,
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED383644.pdf (5 May 2014).
Tinning R, Fitzclarence L (1992). Postmodern youth culture and the
crisis in Australian secondary school physical education. Quest.
44(3):287-303.
nd
Willgoose CA (1984). The curriculum physical education. (2. Ed.).
Prentice- Hall: INC. pp. 94-98.
Yanik M, Çamliyer H (2015). The relationship between high school 9th
graders'attitudes towards physical education and sports and their
levels of alienation from school. Intl. J. Sports, Exercise Train. Sci.
1(1).